Re: SF: Complex solutions, current state of the art

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 02/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:17:56 -0600

On 22 Feb 2005 15:12:40 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:

>Well, I am quite willing to admit being disappointed with surrogate
>factoring in many ways, as I haven't been able to close the
>space--meaning, perfectly factor *every* number I try with a single
>j--and that's just, well, it's disheartening.
>
>At the start I had high hopes, and a lot of certainty, but now I'm
>really just looking for answers and quite willing to accept if the
>method cannot be made practical.
>
>There are many reasons for that, not the least being that over time,
>whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my
>mark,

Yes, that seems pretty likely. You're going to be remembered
for centuries as the inventor of a factoring algorithm that
doesn't work. That's never been done before, after all.

>without even considering my other research, which will though,
>come in afterwards anyway.

Yes, your other work will probably also be remembered:

"James Harris... oh right, he's the genius who invented that
factoring method that doesn't work."

"Don't forget, he also published hundreds of erroneous proofs
of Fermat's Last Theorem, as well as an incomprehensible
paper showing that the algebraic integers are wrong somehow"

>That's because it is, as I said, a new factoring method at a level not
>seen in centuries, as if this Usenet poster replied correctly that
>Fermat discovered congruence of squares, then a discovery of a
>factoring method at this level has not been made in centuries.
>
>I would greatly welcome anyone willing to challenge that remark, with
>some other factoring method.

I doubt that anyone will be able to find a factoring method
anywhere in the literature that's equal to yours in importance.

>Hey, if I'm wrong--correct me.
>
>With that said, I'm looking over the full theory, as I've worked more
>on the surrogate factoring paper still at my Yahoo! Group which has
>been closed to the public, and it's telling me that I've covered a LOT
>of ground.
>
>I'm thinking now that the final solution may be complex numbers.
>
>That's because A is not given in any of the methods used, as Ax, and Az
>are what are used, so A might be complex, with x, y and z complex,
>while Ax and Az are rationals, which opens up more combinations, which
>I'd previously ignored, focusing on only rationals.
>
>It's a fascinating twist--to me as others might disagree--but it's a
>theoretical path at this point not tested out.
>
>So what is the state of the art in surrogate factoring?
>
>I'm not sure. I know what I have and my programs actually factor a
>very high percentage of the time,

When you feed it a 50bit number what percentage of the time does
it find factors?

>while I'm looking for 100%, so I'm
>disappointed.
>
>It's harder to interpret posts from others, while I know that more
>people than you may realize are working on the problem, and giving the
>high rate of factorization I get--still disappointing to me as it's not
>100%--I consider it possible that much of the research is now happening
>behind closed doors.
>
>So, yes, most of you are now basically out, as I've closed doors, and
>others are apparently now working in secret, and that's understandable.
>
>With that said, while I have the new paper, which can still leak out as
>there are other members in my Yahoo! Group, I have put up the
>algorithms I'm testing, so what the hell?
>
>Do you need the theory, when you have the algorithms?
>
>I'm hoping some of you do. I'm looking for theoretical types who are
>interested in looking over the paper to see if there are holes as I'm
>still desperately looking for a reason why, since I think I've covered
>all the bases.
>
>I need to know where the hole is.
>
>Interested parties can email me, and I can just send them the paper, or
>they can ask to join the group.
>
>The nice thing about the group is, no Usenet posters posting just to
>distract, make fun, or dodge the issue.
>
>It's a closed environment, mostly quiet, where you can be objective,
>without worrying about your comments being made public, as I can't make
>the group public again if I tried, and I will not bring information out
>of the group about postings, while if anyone in it does, without
>permission, they'll get quickly TOSSED.
>
>
>James Harris

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SF: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... >whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... >factoring method at this level has not been made in centuries. ... >behind closed doors. ... when you have the algorithms? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... > whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... > factoring method at this level has not been made in centuries. ... > behind closed doors. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... > whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... > factoring method at this level has not been made in centuries. ... > behind closed doors. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • SF: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... I am quite willing to admit being disappointed with surrogate ... whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... That's because it is, as I said, a new factoring method at a level not ... high rate of factorization I get--still disappointing to me as it's not ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • SF: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... I am quite willing to admit being disappointed with surrogate ... whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... That's because it is, as I said, a new factoring method at a level not ... high rate of factorization I get--still disappointing to me as it's not ...
    (sci.math)